victoly Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0092781 super cool! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planeden Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 odd. i'm not sure the radiation of the sunlight spectrum on the coral reefs, but i would assume it has red in it when it hits the corals. of course, this is over my head...so...yeah. odd's all i got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victoly Posted March 24, 2014 Author Share Posted March 24, 2014 Abridged version (as I interpret it) is that some species of SPS have kind of a built in "red light" detector that tells them that they are too close to the surface (i.e., too much penetrating red light) which tells them to reduce their zooxanthellae density. You can see it pretty clearly in the pictures of the "red light" coral exactly what I would describe STN as (white tissue at the base). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planeden Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Abridged version (as I interpret it) is that some species of SPS have kind of a built in "red light" detector that tells them that they are too close to the surface (i.e., too much penetrating red light) which tells them to reduce their zooxanthellae density. You can see it pretty clearly in the pictures of the "red light" coral exactly what I would describe STN as (white tissue at the base). oh cool. i starting reading the full paper and got to "to dense for my density" and gave up after a paragraph or two . i wonder if the SPS judge the other corals that don't mind perusing the red light district or the macros that really enjoy it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jestep Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I do find it funny how there was such a rush to add red LED's over the past year or so. I think if you just look at it logically it makes a lot of sense. Red light is quickly filtered in water, so corals are primarily exposed to bluer spectrums especially in deeper water species. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victoly Posted March 24, 2014 Author Share Posted March 24, 2014 I do find it funny how there was such a rush to add red LED's over the past year or so. I think if you just look at it logically it makes a lot of sense. Red light is quickly filtered in water, so corals are primarily exposed to bluer spectrums especially in deeper water species. That's not to say that there aren't a ton of corals that sit right up in the tide pools at the surface , it's just interesting that the species in question had a poor reaction to red light. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsea Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 The rush to add red light may not have been for the corals, but for the viewers. It would assist with highlighting reds and yellows in the tank for the viewers. I never liked the smurf look. But that is just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsea Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 At 30' all the red light is filtered out. Dennis, not all macro wants red light. Both Red Grapes and Dragons Breath are collected between 40'-120'. While Dragons Breath will tolerate some intensity in red, not so with Red Grapes. I have bleached much Red Grapes with yellows and red. Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Is the conclusion that there is little to no benefit to presenting red light to any coral whatsoever and that it's better to just not have it present in your LED spectrum? How does this relate to MH fixtures which contain the full spectrum of light with no way to remove the red? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planeden Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Dennis, not all macro wants red light. Both Red Grapes and Dragons Breath are collected between 40'-120'. While Dragons Breath will tolerate some intensity in red, not so with Red Grapes. I have bleached much Red Grapes with yellows and red. Patrick fair point, but i thought the stereotype made the joke funnier Is the conclusion that there is little to no benefit to presenting red light to any coral whatsoever and that it's better to just not have it present in your LED spectrum? How does this relate to MH fixtures which contain the full spectrum of light with no way to remove the red? put a filter on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I have a Reefbreeders Photon 48 which has four 660nm red LEDs. The layout is below. Will these be detrimental to any SPS I have located at the top of my tank where they belong? Is there enough evidence to support blocking or replacing these LEDs with another blue one? From Reefbreeders: The exact color combination is as follows: channel 1; 44 450nm royal blue, 4 480nm blue. Channel 2; 24 4500K neutral whites, 8 480nm blues, 4 660nm reds, and 12 410-420nm violets. Channel 3; 6 480nm blue moonlights, for a total of 102 3 watt LEDs. We put 120s on the reds and moonlights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victoly Posted March 24, 2014 Author Share Posted March 24, 2014 No doubt that most commercial NON led lights (MH,T5, etc) have red included in their spectrum. I can't help but wonder if the discrete reds, as opposed to the blending in MH and T5 is where the issue lies. I think people are having success with LEDs that have red channels, but I can't help but wonder if it's not optimal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dshel1217 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I have had few red leds on my tank for well over 1.5 years and been successfully with Sps corals. So I would say its a matter of moderation I'm not going to cover up my red LEDs and I don't thing radion, ai and others are going to either. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mFrame Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Seems like the perfect time to plug our 2014 C4 speaker, Dana Riddle. He addressed this particular topic at last year's MACNA and will be discussing it further at C4 on Saturday May 3rd (ahem... tickets still on sale) Here's a link to one of his recent articles 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planeden Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I have a Reefbreeders Photon 48 which has four 660nm red LEDs. The layout is below. Will these be detrimental to any SPS I have located at the top of my tank where they belong? Is there enough evidence to support blocking or replacing these LEDs with another blue one? From Reefbreeders: The exact color combination is as follows: channel 1; 44 450nm royal blue, 4 480nm blue. Channel 2; 24 4500K neutral whites, 8 480nm blues, 4 660nm reds, and 12 410-420nm violets. Channel 3; 6 480nm blue moonlights, for a total of 102 3 watt LEDs. We put 120s on the reds and moonlights. before my brain started to fizzle i saw that "lower" radiance of reds was ok. but i had a mild seizure when i tried to see how to turn the units of micromoles / m^2 s to something useful to us. i got to "divide micromoles / m^2 s by 4.6 to get W / m^2", but i did not go long enough to find the area that is important for that. surface area of the light, coral, water, or the bright spot at as it moves down in a cone. who knows? well, somebody ought to, but it aint me. but my hunch is that unless "lower" radience is tiny...which it could be for all i know...your 4 red LEDs in a 102 LED array may be under the threshold. part of why i think this is the number of people adding reds to the LEDs. i can't imagine the lighting company would find it in their best interest to sell a product that is bad for corals. unless they are getting giant kickbacks from SPS dealers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victoly Posted March 24, 2014 Author Share Posted March 24, 2014 luddites Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogdan Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Whenever I read a discussion about lighting and its spectrum I can feel that there is a confusion about it. As subsea pointed out, there are two points of view: are we considering the lighting for the coral growth and health or just for how the corals present them self for our eyes (simply for the look). I understand that reefers want to satisfy both the corals and the viewers and that is the problem. If one wants to create the best conditions for corals growth (and believe in process of evolution) then the condition of natural reef should be recreated. I guess we all know how dull corals looks in nature. On the other hand reefers get mostly excited about the colors of corals, nobody wants to grow brownish sticks. So we create completely artificial and unnatural lighting to underline the colors and fluorescence of zooxanthellae. Personally I have introduced a red LED in my fixture to bring up the colors in BamBam's or Forest fire digi and didn't see any adverse effect. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timfish Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Fascinating article! Thanks for posting it Victoly. While I'm sure this research will apply to many of the other coral species we keep it will be interesting to see how it applies to species that use chromoproteins that reflect red light . I'm also interested in knowing why red light has a negative effect on chlorophyll a which has part of it's absorption spectrum in the red. Some more questions to ask Dana Riddle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nano Reefer Ky Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 If one wants to create the best conditions for corals growth (and believe in process of evolution) then the condition of natural reef should be recreated. I would like to argue that sometimes we are better at creating environments than nature is. Hydroponic tomatoes are a good example of this. We do make a bunch of mistakes though trying to beat nature. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victoly Posted March 27, 2014 Author Share Posted March 27, 2014 hydroponic "tomatoes" are the best! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nano Reefer Ky Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 True... At least they are bigger and prettier to look at.... We haven't started eating our corals yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planeden Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 haha, i'm not sure which we were better at designing. light or the tomato. although, from what i hear from my tomato eating brethren, nature made a tastier tomato. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogdan Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 hydroponic "tomatoes" are the best! Even better are the hydroponic/GMO/hybrid/vaccine et cetera ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.